[image: i.imgur.com]
Which, inevitably, leads to this:
[image: i.imgur.com]
Which, interestingly, leads to this:
[image: i.imgur.com]
So if you want to avoid that, maybe you should stop doing this:
[image: i.imgur.com]
Patient [2131539] Level 90
From the 2,000 newest archived posts.
Likes as archived at fetch time, adjusted for how long each post had been up. Scored posts only; the full score pass runs after the import.
Staff edit flaming/discrimination
Oh no, I didn't waste my time refuting his full of shit gish-galloping.
You clearly haven't bothered looking into any of this claims, because if you did, you'd already know he was full of shit. I invite anyone and everyone to try and verify his claims like I did, and then you could get back to me with the snark.
But I'm not going to do a jihadist's homework for them and waste my time typing up an essay to argue with someone who is just going to shout NUH UH! and especially so when they clearly know they're full of shit.
Blah blah blah.
Happy pride month.

Just stop trying to kill all of the Jews.
Oh, you say they lived with Jews and Christians peacefull for centuries? Please, regale us with the statistics of how many Jews live in Palestine, and then tell us how many Muslims live in Israel. Tell us how many Jews are in Egypt, Jordan, Iran, Iraq, etc.
I could count the number of Jews in Iraq on one hand. If I was counting them in Lybia, Syria, or Yemen, I'd be making a fist. Why? Because they kill them or kick them all out.
I'm not mocking shit. If you don't want a country to bomb you, then maybe don't do what those jihadists did on October 7th. And you don't really get to cry "why don't they all just live together?!?!" when we both know that those jihadists will do anything and everything they can to stop that from happening.
If anyone is a dumb piece of shit, it's you, and I have no reason to give you the benefit of the doubt in assuming you're not a jihadist piece of shit.
Just stop trying to kill all of the Jews. Why is that so difficult for you to agree with?
I don't care about jihadists or zionists, both of them can suck a nut for all I care, but if you're going to come here begging for sympathy for jihadists, maybe stop trying to pull the same shit Hitler did.
Maybe just stop trying to kill all of the jews, and then maybe I'll start feeling bad when Israel bombs the hospitals and schools them jihadists use as military bases.
Until then, Palestine voted for the leopards eating your face party and then immediately afterwards started crying about leopards eating their faces.
WOMP WOMP!
Yup, as long as them jihadists are there, there will never be peace.
That's a lot of words for you to say "I don't know, Patient, you're right."
You're kind of telling everyone how ignorant of both politics and law you are here, and how egocentric you are to think that any individual opinion of someone not in a position to effect them has any importance.
While the CSA creates the drug scheduling system, it's up to the executive branch to determine exactly what drugs are on that schedule. If a president wanted to remove certain drugs from that scheduling, I'd fully expect them to pardon those charged with offenses related to that drug. Whether or not I'd "be all for it" is irrelevant.
My argument (which was really just an observation, wasn't inviting any argument, but you're welcome for me entertaining your argument), was that a president who has openly stated his disdain for the IRS is pardoning people for offenses related to the IRS. You claim it only gets applied to the wealthy, but... you do know that typically that when someone wants a pardon, they have to apply for one? And that the overwhelming majority of pardons are done without the media fanfare that these high-profile cases that get your panties in a wad get?
The only reason you believe it only applies to the wealthy is because the only extent of thought you've given it is what the media outlets that share your hatred of Trump have told you about.
Wow, you're really projecting there, windy.
Don't worry, I'm sure your daddy still loves you, even if you're mad at him for not clapping enthusiastically enough for your lifestyle choices.
One things this interpretation misses:
You would mean a random person somewhere in the world, basically categories 7-9 depending on where you and the liberal live.
The more interesting takeaway I think is that they care more about inanimate matter than they do their own families and friends. Given how easily they disown those closest to them who don't align with their cultish and dogmatic views, it's not surprising at all except for the extent of just how relatively little they care about them.
But if I had to guess, it would be that the results of this are more an affect of them wanting to appear as empathetic as possible to as many people as possible, when really, we all know liberals have have very little capacity for genuine empathy in the first place, rather basing the the target of their faux empathy on whether it aligns with their greater interest of maintaining or elevating their status among their hivemind.
Wow, a president who said he wants to dismantle the IRS and eliminate income taxes pardoning people who are in trouble with the IRS because of income tax.....
Shocking.
Sure, take all the time you need to connect those dots.
I'll wait.
So chocolate labs must live in agony then, hm?
But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
I haven't been following this trial, and your presentation of it is so one-sided, and without actually knowing the commentary you're referring to, I can't help but be skeptical of your framing of it.
All I can really say based on what you've said here is that it sounds like Read's lawyers are doing a good job in convincing the jury to side with her, but whether or not I would side with her is still up in the air as I haven't really looked into it.
No, it's not a good test.
Revoking the privilege of sponsoring visas because they're not doing enough to tackle antisemitism when they're otherwise in compliance with federal regulations, I don't agree with.
Revoking the privilege of sponsoring visas because they're not doing enough to tackle antisemitism when they're not in compliance with federal regulations, I'm fine with.
If you're incapable of making that distinction, then I don't think you're going to find any productive discussion here.
Hm, not giving Ivy League schools billions of dollars for administrative expenses? Sign me up.
Oh, deporting people who come here illegally? Rock the f**k on!
Ah, not trying to damage children's lives because they don't like playing with the toys you expected them to like? Sounds good.
Whoa, never thought I'd see an argument in favor of baby murder, but I'm glad we're trying to stop murdering babies.
That's off the top of my head, but I'm sure you'll be copy/pasting more crap from whatever social media or mainstream news outlet you outsource your thought to.
Hm, I wonder if they ever just tried.... you know.... stop trying to kill all of the jews?
I thought we got all of that out of our system with the whole WW2 thing.
Maybe someone who doesn't want to kill all the farmers?
They're not criminalizing weed, they're criminalizing all of the synthetic alternatives or analogues or derivatives of weed that came about through the loopholes in the 2018 farm bill that let people sell variations of THC and CBD.
Weed hasn't been legal in Texas since 1931.
Whether or not they should is a different question, but no, they aren't criminalizing weed.
Wow, a non-American telling Americans what Americans want.
Still salty about that whole revolutionary war thing?